Please note that for this article "Atheism" also includes agnostics, deists, pagans, wiccans... in other words non-religious.

You will notice this is a statement of fact. And to be fact it is supported by evidence (see references below). Now you can have "faith" that this is not true, but by the very definition of faith, that is just wishful thinking.
Read more

Its commonley understood amoung serious scholars (not anti-religious bigots) that the Church was the font of our sciuentific enlightenment.

Disagree.

Fitz wrote:

Unlike other religions the Christian religion believed ina God who made a descernable universe capable of being understood by mans intleeigence (because it was made by a rational god)

Where does your bible say that?

Fitz wrote:

The developed the rules of evidences, the scientific method, the university system, and countless scientist were and still are believing Christians.. Including Gallileo, who proofs for heleocentrism were infact flawed and did not prove what was already widley understood since copernicus as probably true but not yet demostratable through impirical proofs.The Church does get credit for fostering intentionally the scientists under its direct imploy and for encouraging, financing and fostering the discipline of the sciences for their earliest inception and of coarse continuing today.

What does that have to do with Christianity or the bible? The bible teaches that the earth is flat and fixed, and that the sun moves around it. Galileo was famously rebuked and arrested and by the pope for questioning Christian superstition.

Copernicus was afraid to publish his finding before his death for fear of your church's reaction, and he was right. From "Burned at the Stake for Believing in Science - The life and work—and unorthodox beliefs—of Italian philosopher Giordano Bruno" at http://discovermagazine.com/2008/sep/06-burne... :

"The 16th-century Italian philosopher (and former Catholic priest) Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for a stubborn adherence to his then unorthodox beliefs—including the ideas that the universe is infinite and that other solar systems exist. "

And now you want to give Jesus the credit? Sorry, but your church gets zero credit for scientific advances.

“We would be 1,500 years ahead if it hadn't been for the church dragging science back by its coattails and burning our best minds at the stake.”- Catherine Fahringer

<quoted text>"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ""endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"This statement in The Declaration of Independence shows that we get unalienable Rights because we have a creator. You don't get them because you have no creator.

Your creators are the laws of physics and chemistry. They bestow no rights. Man defines and claims his own rights.

The word "atheism" also carries the innuendo of an attitude countenancing moral laxity, or a belief that man-made ethics, having no divine sanction, rest on shaky foundations.

We have Christianity to thank for that slander. Actually, atheism makes room for superior ethical systems like secular humanism and Buddhism.

Langoliers wrote:

For an increasing section of humanity, the belief in God is breaking down rapidly, as well as the accustomed motivations for moral conduct.

That appears to be a good thing:

According to http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.h... , the murder total in America peaked in 1991 at 24,700, and fell to a modern minimum of 14,612 in 2011. There were 252 million Americans in 1991 compared to 311 million in 2011 making the respective murder rates 9.8 per 100,000 in 1991, and 4.7 per 100,000 in 2011 - less than half.

At the same time, according to the American Religious Identification Survey at http://www.dawahskills.com/skills-tools/ameri... , the total number of adults identifying as Christian fell from 151 million out of 175 million adults (86.2%) in 1990 to 173 million out out of 228 million adults (76.0%) in 2008. During the same period, "nones" and "no religion" rose from 14 million (8.2%) to 34 million (15.0%)-almost double.

As the number of irreligious doubled, the murder rate halved.

Langoliers wrote:

This shows the risk of basing moral postulates on divine commandments, when their alleged source rapidly loses credence and authority.

It's surprising that you would post this.

Langoliers wrote:

There is a need for an autonomous foundation for ethics, one that has deeper roots than a social contract and is capable of protecting the security of the individual and of human institutions.

The Galilieo affair is the most often demegouged by anti-religious bigots, and one that often reveals the profound ignorance of the dispute itself and how Galileo (a devout Catholic through-out his life and through-out the affair) could not prove the validity the reigning Copernicun theisis sceintifically..

So what? Why was Galileo arrested and censored?

Fitz wrote:

Example of the context of the dispute."I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun was in the center of the universe and the earth in the third sphere, and that the sun did not go around the earth but the earth went around the sun, then it would be necessary to use careful consideration in explaining the Scriptures that seemed contrary, and we should rather have to say that we do not understand them than to say that something is false which had been proven."11. Letter of Cardinal Bellarmine discussing the Galillo affair.

Again, so what? Why was Galileo censored by the church? Why did it ban his book for centuries?

There is no demagoguing or bigotry here. You are trying to hide a huge church blemish with your revisionist apologetics.

Fitz wrote:

Those who want to paint the Church as "anti-science" have little to stand on and know little of the complexity in the Galileo affair.

It is also telling that it is the only example than can point to in their claim that the Church supressed science rather than the truth that the Church was a leader in the development and practice of science.

"In 1530, Copernicus published his paper "De Revolutionibus," which laid an outline of his belief that the Earth rotates around the sun. Of course, Copernicus waited until he was dying to publish this so he could escape the sure punishment from the Catholic Church."http://www.childrensmuseum.org/cosmicquest/re...

"To His Holiness, Pope Paul III,Nicholas Copernicus' Prefaceto His Books on the Revolutions

I can readily imagine, Holy Father, that as soon as some people hear that in this volume, which I have written about the revolutions of the spheres of the universe, I ascribe certain motions to the terrestrial globe, they will shout that I must be immediately repudiated together with this belief."

That's your church sinning against science over and over again. It threatened and attacked the scientists when it had the power.

Sorry, but there is too much information available today for you to get away with this kind of thing except with other willing believers like yourself.

1. Death is not a riddle. When your brain dies, you are gone. Its the harsh reality of life.

2. The scientific evidence is that the universe was created in a big bag c.13.7 billion years ago. Life evolved on planet earth over 3.8 billion years from simple forms to complex life we see today.

The myths of the bible and the quran has been proved false. The universe and life was not created in 6 days 6000 years ago.

3. Atheists and other free thinkers, believe in lots of different things. Its just that the things they believe in are based in reality and not on myths and fantasy.

Ans.

01. Death is not riddle, but what happens after you die is a riddle (see my answer to your last question).

02. Yes the "scientific evidence (?)" is that Universe came into being 14 Billion years ago.

What was before that? Does any one knows it?

Scientists "Think" that life evolved in past 3.8 billion years, how, no one knows. They "think" that life forms changed from one to another, but there is no proof. It is their assumptions and assumptions cannot take the place of proofs.

02A. I cannot say about the "Myths" of Bible, but in Quran there is no myth. It NEVER says that Universe was created in 6, 24 hours period 6000 years back!!

03. Atheists and "free" thinkers are like "Free" electrons we have in science. They are just wandering from one extreme to another, each having their own hypothesis.

What they ALL agree on however is that there is no God, there is No Creator and there is No purpose of human lives!!

01. Yes you are right atheists can not prove there is no life after death any more than religions or anyone else can prove there is,there is no shame in being Agnostic on this or anything else and just say 'i don't know' safe in the knowledge that if any one else says they do know there is life after death they are either a liar,deluded,or madly brainwashed by religion.

02. Best to get on with and enjoy what you are sure of,the life you are in.Take your right thumb and index finger of your right hand pinch a portion of skin on the back of your left hand between your index finger and thumb joints,now twist, if it hurts you are alive,join the club.Enjoy life.

Ans.

01. Atheists cannot prove that there is 'Life after death" so they DENY that there is life after death? Is it a logical stand?

02. Religious people that they have info from the Creator of this Universe that each person is here for a test and the results shall be shown when one dies. Is THIS a very illogical or unreasonable thing which simple human minds cannot understand?

03. So if we all die, and find out there is no life after death as you people "assume" then what we lost in this world? A few enjoyments?

04. And if you found out that "there is indeed life after death" and you have to account for your deeds. What would be your position? What will be your plea? You were "told and warned", but you CHOOSE to ridicule and reject it and taught your "assumptions" would be truth.

05. Who is in greater danger, and following a slippery path? You or us?

06. Therefore the "prudent and cautious" course is what I said. Enjoy life but do not forget your real mission. Do not gamble with your entire life. Get the good things of this life as well as good things of the next life too.

The facts presented to you concerning religious scientific discovery and involvment in nurturing scientific thought and the scientific revolution are widley held matters of fact.

What religious scientific discoveries?

That the earth is flat and fixed, that the universe and life were made in a few days, that snakes can talk, that the world was once completely submerged by a rainstorm in only forty days, that satyrs, dragons and cockatrices once roamed the earth, that insects have four legs, that bats are birds, that rabbits chew cud, and that the sun can stop in the sky? That's science from your bible.

Perhaps that is the case in your church bulletin and on Christian apologetics web sites, but not in my circles, and not among the authors I have read. As you can see, your claims are widely disputed right here.

<quoted text>Nazareth was a small kind of backwards little town. Would this type of town catch much attention from historian writers? Nope. There is enough evidence for historian of today to accept the fact that Nazareth did exist at the time of Jesus.As far as you not believing Jesus was a real person. I can't begin to list all the evidence but I doubt if I did it would make any difference. You are loaded down with all your other beliefs.Big Bang (not Bag):)1) when nothing exploded creating everything.2) when a spinning (or not spinning) singularity exploded creating everything.3) a bouncing universeSpontaneous life1) life coming from rain falling on rocksEvolution1) a speck of spontaneous life from wet rocks the ancestor of every plant and animal life that ever lived.2) that mankind is just an animal nothing more3) that morality only evolved in one animal ( man )4) that because human chromosome number 2 is fused and no other member of the ape family has it proves we are apes.?????(Really?)

Evolution is on fact to a certain extent..its only fact on a very small scale.

How do you know?

Why should I believe you, and not the overwhelming majority of scientists who contradict you. So do many prominent Christian institutions:

[1] Baylor University, the largest Baptist University in the world has stated: "Evolution, a foundational principle of modern biology, is supported by overwhelming scientific evidence and is accepted by the vast majority of scientists. Because it is fundamental to the understanding of modern biology, the faculty in the Biology Department at Baylor University, Waco, TX, teach evolution throughout the biology curriculum. We are in accordance with the American Association for Advancement of Science's statement on evolution. We are a science department, so we do not teach alternative hypotheses or philosophically deduced theories that cannot be tested rigorously."

[2] The Vatican claims Darwin's theory of evolution is compatible with Christianityhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/4588... ; Pope John Paul Paul II said,“new scientific knowledge has led us to the conclusion that the theory of evolution is no longer a mere hypothesis."

[3] The United Methodist Church : "THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the General Conference of the United Methodist Church go on record as opposing the introduction of any faith-based theories such as Creationism or Intelligent Design into the science curriculum of our public schools." http://idexposed.wordpress.com/2008/05/19/uni...

[4] The Church of England, 2009:“Charles Darwin: 200 years from your birth, the Church of England owes you an apology for misunderstanding you and, by getting our first reaction wrong, encouraging others to misunderstand you still. We try to practise the old virtues of 'faith seeking understanding' and hope that makes some amends."

[5] In the main atrium in Notre Dame’s new Jordan Hall of Science, there is a plaque that reads: "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."

"For Buddhism, however, the basic moral law is inherent in life itself. It is a special case of the law of cause and effect, needing neither a divine law-giver nor depending upon the fluctuating human conceptions of socially conditioned minor moralities and conventions. For an increasing section of humanity, the belief in God is breaking down rapidly, as well as the accustomed motivations for moral conduct. This shows the risk of basing moral postulates on divine commandments, when their alleged source rapidly loses credence and authority. There is a need for an autonomous foundation for ethics"

Just substitute "rights" for "morals" there, and the argument is the same because the risk is the same if you base your human rights on that same divine authority.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.